Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Wall Street Wakes Up?; Anchor War
Aired March 10, 2009 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: You saw that picture we showed you just a little while ago of that actual suicide bombing as it happened. We actually have the video as well. We'll show it to you in just a little bit. Here's what else you're going to be seeing.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Important thing is to be realistic, rather than be delusional, about what's going to happen.
SANCHEZ (voice-over): Can you handle the truth. What is the real state of our economy, no B.S., from the man who predicted this? And his solution? Break every mortgage contract. What you need to know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We seize in this two years more than 25,000 weapons, guns.
SANCHEZ: Where are Mexican drug-runners, who we revile against on the news every day, getting their guns? Surprise. Wait until you find out.
ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "GODLESS: THE CHURCH OF LIBERALISM": This is pretty outrageous.
SANCHEZ: Ann Coulter, offensive, radical, insulting, who's saying that about her? John McCain's daughter, Meghan.
Anchor war: Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer. And it's getting ugly.
The most important decision affecting union workers in decades, Dems like it, Republicans hate it. How do you feel? Tell us what you say on the first show that invited you in. I know. Everybody's trying to do it now. The original national conversation begins right now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: And hello again, everybody. I'm Rick Sanchez.
I know. Things are bad and some people are saying things are even going to get a whole lot worse. But at least on this day, in this moment, right now, things are pretty good. Look at the numbers on Wall Street right now. It's above 300. There you go.
Let's go to Stephanie Elam. She's standing by watching this.
Could this be a real big day on Wall Street, something we haven't seen in an awful long time? And to what do you give this explanation?
STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Rick, right now, yes, it's something we haven't seen in awhile. So, it's good. But it is just one day. We're back nearing our highs of the session.
SANCHEZ: I was afraid you would say that.
ELAM: Yes, it is one day. It's nice to see that we were up around 5 percent. That's great. We love to see that. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all things are rosy now, especially after yesterday hitting 12-year lows. So, part of the reason why we're seeing the rally, Rick, just really quickly, Bernanke has reiterated that the recession could end this year as the financial markets stabilize.
The other issue, Citigroup's CEO saying that the bank operated at a profit in January and February. That's helping out financial stocks.
SANCHEZ: Yes. Yes. That's interesting, you would bring that to us. Hey, we're going to be checking back with you throughout this newscast, and certainly toward the end of the hour, when we see exactly where this number is going to close. That's probably the most important.
But while Bernanke is saying this could be over by the end of this year, or -- pardon me -- not over by the end of this year, but that we will start to see a little bit of a smoothing out, there's a whole lot of voices out there that are not so optimistic.
As a matter of fact, last night, the treasury secretary -- listen to this -- the treasury secretary of the United States met behind closed doors with Democrats, who are very concerned that this thing could be a lot worse than we're being told. They're nervous. They want answers. They want explanations. They want to know how long it's going to last. They want to know how long it's going to be.
So, listen to Steny Hoyer after he met with Timothy Geithner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD), MAJORITY LEADER: Secretary Geithner indicated that he believes that what we're doing is working. The problem with working, of course, is that that means it's not getting worse.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Yes. And what he wants to really know is, is this thing going to get turned around, is it going to happen anytime soon? And, if not, look, as much as it hurts, please, just tell us the truth.
We're going to do a lot of truth-telling in this next couple of minutes. So stay with us during this segment, because we have got some startling information from someone who is very much in the know. I want to introduce our guests as we get into this segment. Bob Lenzner, Forbes.com, joins us once again, as does Patricia Murphy, Murph, of course, with CitizenJanePolitics.com.
Bob, let me begin with you.
We have been hearing an awful lot of anti-Geithner comments lately, like, you know what, this guy doesn't have any answers. Why do we have him in the position? And I guess the obvious question is, who the hell does have the answer?
ROBERT LENZNER, NATIONAL EDITOR, "FORBES": No, I don't think anybody has the answers. Let's be fair about it.
Nobody really knows. I know Roubini this morning said that he thought it would be over, that it would only last 36 months. He's got a good finger on the pulse of it. But there's no telling whether he's right or wrong.
SANCHEZ: But, hey, Bob, is there a possibility that Geithner does know how bad things are?
LENZNER: No, he doesn't. Geithner doesn't know.
SANCHEZ: Is there a possibility that things are a lot worse than what we're being told right now and that's really why these Democrats took Geithner behind closed doors, shut, locked the door, actually, and said, come on, what's going on here?
LENZNER: No, I think that they're troubled by the fact that there hasn't been, like, real concrete results and they seem sort of muddled about what they're doing and that there's been a lot of criticism about that the stimulus plan isn't going to be enough, and that the plan to stabilize the banks is very vague and it's not distinct enough. It doesn't look to anybody as if it's really on the right track.
So I think all those things are true. But I don't think they're keeping secrets from us. I don't think they know really themselves. It's happening out there in the world faster than anybody can really absorb it.
SANCHEZ: Well, you know, we're going to get into some of the specifics of that in just a moment.
LENZNER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: But let's go back to this political equation.
Let me bring Murph back into this.
Murph, Democrats -- I can see a bunch of Democrats starting to get real nervous. They're starting to look at their own poll numbers and worried if the party is going to be affected by the fact that we're putting policies during a Democratic administration in place that doesn't show any results. So set the mood for me last night. Democrats take Geithner behind closed doors, lock the door and they do what?
PATRICIA MURPHY, EDITOR, CITIZENJANEPOLITICS.COM: Sure.
Well, this was a meeting that lasted two hours, which is quite lengthy for a meeting of that sort. It was described to me as not something that was confrontational. There wasn't anger. But there is a lot of anxiety from these Democratic members. And that comes from the fact that they cannot have confidence in something that they can't understand or that they don't understand.
SANCHEZ: Well, who does? First of all, they're politicians. They're not economists. So, the fact that they don't understand it should really come as a surprise to no one, because most of us don't understand it either, right?
MURPHY: Right. And that really is the problem. And these congress men and women go home to their districts. They get an earful about AIG. Why are they getting so much money. Why is the Treasury pumping in so much money? It's not coming to me.
They go home every weekend and have to answer those questions. And that was what they were asking of Tim Geithner. He was connecting the dots for them.
SANCHEZ: I get that. But here's what I also have been hearing. And this has been written about a lot, all right? So -- that Geithner, despite the fact that he may not be doing his job and all these people are saying that, that's for the most part B.S. The guy has been there for, what, 45 days, 50 days. All right, so let's put that aside.
But how about this one, that Geithner is too Wall Street, too Wall Street to fix Main Street's problems?
Murph? Bob? Who wants that?
LENZNER: Yes. Let Murph go first.
SANCHEZ: All right.
MURPHY: OK. I will go first.
I will say, what I hear -- I heard that complaint a lot more about Henry Paulson, who was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. He was considered too Wall Street to fix Main Street. What I hear about Geithner is, he's just not a gifted communicator. He's extremely intelligent, but the information coming out of him, there are not a lot of details.
Politically, he can't give a lot of details in some of these instances, and so there's just not confidence in what the fix is, because we don't really know what it's going to be. That's what I hear.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: OK.
Bob.
LENZNER: I don't think he's too Wall Street.
I don't -- I have a feeling that he's not bold enough or tough enough to deal with something. This is really -- I mean, this kind of thing has never happened before, what's happening right here.
SANCHEZ: OK. Let's talk about what's going on right here. Let's go back go the name that you brought up a little while ago. This is economist Nouriel Roubini.
We put up a -- I read what he wrote. and look at the graph that we created. This is what he's saying. All right? You ready folks at home watching this? How bad are things going to get? You have heard all kinds of scenarios. This is Roubini's scenario.
And, by the way, this is the guy that predicted this thing before it happened. They say he's a really smart guy. He says growth over the next couple of years, close to zero, unemployment close to 10 percent. How long is this thing going to last? Thirty-six months.
Remember, Bernanke, we just reported a moment ago, said we might start to get out of it by the beginning of this year, the beginning of next -- the end of this year, the beginning of next year.
And what is this thing going to look like? He says it's going to be an L-shaped recovery, as opposed to U-shaped recovery. And here's what I'm talking about when I say that. I mean, really, a U shape, it begins here, right, goes down and it goes up. Now we're at the end of it. An L shape means it's bad, it's still bad, and then it continues bad for an awful long time.
That's what he means, right?
(CROSSTALK)
LENZNER: It's not actually a recovery when you have an L. And I think that's...
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: That's back to that mild depression conversation you and I had a week ago.
LENZNER: Well, right, exactly.
(CROSSTALK)
SANCHEZ: He's not painting a good-looking picture, Bob.
LENZNER: Well, I will tell you something. As I told you before, I have -- he's very, very, very pessimistic. People are hoping that he's getting too pessimistic.
But, you know, 36 months, we're already in the 15th or 16th month. So much, if we only have, what he's saying, that we should be getting out of it by the end of 2010. Boy, I will be very happy if we get out of it. But I don't see where the growth is going to come from...
SANCHEZ: Yes.
LENZNER: ... the bottom of the L is flat. And we're down now and going down further.
So, you know, Bernanke has, I think -- Bernanke needs to give a message that will be somewhat hopeful, more hopeful than...
SANCHEZ: Well, he did. He did.
LENZNER: Yes, right.
SANCHEZ: Well, before I let you go -- my producer's going to yell and scream at me. I know, Chris, I'm going to hear you, but just this before we do anything else. This guy says -- I hear you, Chris.
This guy Roubini says that the solution may be -- or part of the solution to break every mortgage contract in this country.
LENZNER: Yes.
SANCHEZ: What is he talking about?
LENZNER: I don't know how you could do that, the logistics of it. What he means is that we should try to keep people in their homes by lowering the interest on the mortgage and by lowering the principal on the mortgage to what they can afford.
SANCHEZ: Wow.
LENZNER: But I don't know how you would actually carry that out on $14 trillion of mortgages. That would be really hard to do.
SANCHEZ: Well, it goes back to the old argument. Give it to the people, instead of giving it to the banks. And we're going to talk about that a little bit again.
Bob, thanks. Murph, thanks. You guys are great.
LENZNER: Not at all.
MURPHY: Thanks, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Anchor war. Alert, alert. Jon Stewart takes off the gloves against Jim Cramer. Have you seen this? How about Cramer this morning on "The Today Show"? Ooh, ouch.
And you have seen a lot of coverage about drug violence in Mexico lately, right? But have you stopped to ask yourself where all those criminals are getting their guns from? We have the answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE")
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Earlier today, I proposed that the federal treasury set aside $420 billion. This $420 billion will be placed in a special fund and will go to the first individual who comes up with a workable plan to solve the banking crisis.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Now, if you have such a plan or know of someone who does, you can call the number on the screen below...
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: I'm reading a lot of comments on the conversation I had moments ago with Murph and with Bob about what's going on in the economy and how long it's going to last, and whether it's going to be a recession or mild depression, whether it's going to be shaped like a U or an L.
And interesting comment we got on Twitter moments ago that I wanted to share with you. Take a look at this. This is a fellow who watches us a lot. And he just immediately shot to us. Ready?
"The economy's going to L?"
Thank you very much.
It's OK not to know something, right? It's even OK to be wrong from time to time. It's not like I haven't been plenty of times. But when you come off as a know-it-all and you're wrong or you come off as somebody who thinks only regular working people are wrong and rich guys are always right, then you draw a lot of attention to yourself.
Examples, Newt Gingrich, he worries about his rich investors friends who -- quote -- "don't trust this administration." Said that on Sunday, right? And he got called out on it after saying it on "Meet the Press" on this newscast by Bob.
Rick Santelli, he appeared on TV and he mocked Americans who can't pay their mortgages. And then he got called out on that.
And then there's Jim Cramer. Here now, Jon Stewart.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART")
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW": We haven't heard a thing from CNBC, although Jim Cramer did write an article for MainStreet.com complaining that we had unfairly used a video clip out of context to make it look like he recommended buying Bear Stearns stock a week before it collapsed.
OK. I was wrong.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Actually, it's true. He wasn't saying to buy Bear Stearns. He was saying that if Bear was your broker or that your was at Bear, your money would not disappear. He was not addressing the value of holding Bear stocks.
So, Jim Cramer, I apologize. That was out of context. Technically, you were correct. You weren't suggesting to buy Bear Stearns.
That was something that you did five days earlier in your buy or sell segment.
JIM CRAMER, HOST, "MAD MONEY": I believe in the Bear franchise. You know what? At 69 bucks, I'm not giving up on this thing.
STEWART: Yeah!
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Of course, while Cramer wasn't giving up on Bear at $69, 11 days later, the stock market was more comfortable with it at $2.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: But it's all sort of equivocal. It's, I'm reiterating, I like bear at $60s. I like Bear in $70s.
He's not saying literally, I'm asking you to buy Bear Stearns. For that, you would have to go back a full seven weeks before the stock completely collapsed.
(LAUGHTER)
CRAMER: I'm asking people who are watching this video to buy Bear Stearns.
(LAUGHTER)
STEWART: Now, that was seven weeks before it collapsed.
In the interest of context, continue.
CRAMER: I'm asking people who are watching this video to buy Bear Stearns.
Now, Bear Stearns acts much better than it should. Now, that's just intuition. And I don't want to put too much faith in intuition, but I have had good intuition over 29 years of investing. And I just think that this one has a very big upside, a very limited downside here. It is -- I think that the last quarter, they have stanched the losses. They're very good at cutting their losses at Bear. But Bear, I believe, is for sale. And I think there are many buyers.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Could be a bidding war.
CRAMER: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right, Jim Cramer, you said it here.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Buy Bear.
STEWART: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) you.
(LAUGHTER)
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: That's not the end of it, folks. Cramer appears on "The Today Show" this morning, where he was shown, as he's looking at it, the Stewart clip. Here's that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TODAY SHOW")
MEREDITH VIEIRA, CO-HOST: Jon Stewart and you are having a little war on words.
CRAMER: Oh, a comedian, a comedian is attacking me. Wow. He runs a variety show.
(CROSSTALK)
VIEIRA: All right. But you know what he's saying about you, that you advised investors to buy Bear Stearns. You said you were taken out of context.
CRAMER: On October 6 of 2008, I came on this show and did something you're never supposed to do if you have a stock show. I said people should sell everything. But that was 35 percent ago.
I mean, whatever he says, Bear Stearns this or that, that was a call that should have wrecked my career. And it would have if the market had gone up. But I stuck my neck out and did it and saved a lot of people money.
VIEIRA: Let's show the tape that he -- from last night, what he said about you.
CRAMER: Why not.
STEWART: So, Jim Cramer, I apologize. That was out of context. Technically, you were correct. You weren't suggesting to buy Bear Stearns.
That was something that you did five days earlier in your buy or sell segment.
(LAUGHTER)
CRAMER: I believe in the Bear franchise. You know what? At 69 bucks, I'm not giving up on this thing.
STEWART: He's not saying literally, I'm asking you to buy Bear Stearns. For that, you would have to go back a full seven weeks before the stock completely collapsed.
(LAUGHTER)
CRAMER: I'm asking people who are watching this video to buy Bear Stearns.
(LAUGHTER)
VIEIRA: Did you make a mistake?
CRAMER: Did I make a mistake?
OK, well, first of all, any time you recommend a stock, and it goes down, you have made a mistake.
Here's the shocker. Almost every stock is down. Any stock you recommended is bad. Warren Buffett, I could run tapes from him, he would look like a complete fool.
This is a terrible market, which is why I told people to sell everything. But you think he's going to run that tape? No, because he's got a comedy show.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: I thought "The Daily Show"'s take on me getting Tased was painful. Ouch.
A video game that you may need to know about where the goal is to rape. That's right. You think "Grand Theft Auto" is bad? If you have a daughter, I want to talk to you. I do, by the way. This one's going to affect you.
And then later, Ann Coulter gets called out by McCain -- no, not the senator, the daughter. This is serious. I think we have found the real maverick in this family. Whew.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")
JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO": Hey, you see this on the news? I thought this was nice.
Over the weekend, in Washington, D.C., first lady Michelle Obama was at a homeless shelter serving food to the homeless. She was giving food to the homeless. Wasn't that nice, reaching out to the middle-class? I thought that...
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: You know, it's funny. The Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart anchor war that we just told you about is making many of you who are watching this newscast very introspective about this whole thing.
Let's go to our Twitter board. It's interesting to watch the reaction. The first one there says: "Cramer/Stewart story was hilarious."
And then the next one, Josef says, "I should feel some pity for the Jim Cramer, but I like Jon and what he said."
That's kind of interesting. It's like they're not quite sure. We will let you know as we go on in the newscast if they make up their mind.
Let's do a MySpace real quick. Can we do that, Robert? Let's do a MySpace. This is interesting, because today, we just got new numbers. In fact, we're going to be talking to Wolf Blitzer in just a little bit. Wolf has new numbers on Barack Obama's approval ratings. Interesting. Look at this message we got on MySpace.
"You can't fix eight years of screwups in 40 days. President Obama has a lot of fixing to do. I wish him all the luck. He needs it."
Interesting take on that, given that we have got numbers that are maybe going to bear that out or not. We will be sharing that with you in just a little bit.
All right, here's what I want to show you right now. We have got a picture, a still of an actual suicide bombing in Sri Lanka. Take it, Dan, if you have got it. This is amazing. This is the moment these people -- these people you're looking at there are at a religious ceremony, totally unsuspecting. They don't know what's about to happen.
That's the moment when the actual bomb of someone who's in the crowd ignites. And you could actually see it. Hey, get rid of all that stuff in the bottom of the picture. Get rid of everything. I want to see the full picture. There you go. Look at the bottom. Look at that guy's foot right there.
You see that? It's like it's burning his heel. And he's about to react to it. This again is in Sri Lanka. Now, we have got the video. We're going to give it one pass so you could see it. This is the real thing, folks. This is what an actual suicide bombing looks like. Dan, hit it.
Look at that. You actually saw the reaction. And there you see what happened -- 14 people are killed, again, Sri Lanka, religious ceremony. Sometimes, seeing it tells the story better than all the stories we have done in the past about terrorism. And you can look at it for yourself. All right. We will stay on top of it.
Meanwhile, this is not an easy story to tell either. And we warn you that many of you may find this one disturbing. This is a video game from a Japanese company. Like every other game, it has a goal. But the goal in this game is to rape a family of three women. That's right. We're talking about a video game -- a mother, an older daughter and a younger daughter, who looks to be about 10 or 12 years old.
All right, this is the cover art we got for it. See it right there? That's the cover art for the game. The game is called "Rapelay." Obviously, we can't show you the worst images, nor would we, nor would we want to.
But notice the little girl crying as the rapist reaches for her. You start each scene by stalking your victims, molesting them on a subway and then cornering them in some secluded place. And it gets even worse. Your rape victim in the game can also get, according to notes, can also get pregnant.
If they do, you're supposed to force them to have an abortion or you can throw them in front of a train, real option. This is a video game.
And you think that's bad? I haven't even mentioned what the game calls free rape mode. I haven't even mentioned as well that it's -- in multiplayer mode, you and your friends can actually participate in gang rapes.
Outside of "Guitar Hero" and "Tiger Woods," I'm not a huge video game player. So, I really don't know what researchers were thinking when they designed this game about rape. I also don't know if playing this game would make someone more likely to rape, like many researchers might say.
But this is what I do know, and I will say it right here and right now. I have a 7-year-old daughter. And I would feel a whole lot better about this world we live in if the people who design these games stop for one just damn minute and considered her feelings, the rights of girls and women, before they decided to put trash like this out.
What do you think? Join our conversation at CNN.com/ricksanchez.
Then there's this, all the deadly violence in Mexico. But before we get all high and mighty, pointing our finger at the Mexicans again, let me ask this question: Where exactly are Mexican criminals getting their guns?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Yes, you can't help but be angry when you look at what's going on with some of the people who make the video games. And I'm sure you guys are getting it, too, because we're getting a bevy of responses as we're doing this.
Let's go to the very one at the top.
Sue -- Sue the Brit, interesting name: "Do we not have censors for these games? Glad mine are all grown up. Is it Japanese?"
Yes, it is. It's a Japanese-designed game. The good news, by the way, Sue, is that it's not being right now put out by Amazon in the United States. They have gotten enough complaints that they have decided not -- to take it off their Web site.
By the way, the mainstream media are having a field day with the Mexican drug war stories. I'm sure you have seen them, bevies of them. Is it a legitimate story? Of course it's a legitimate story.
But how is it being covered? Generally by finger-pointing at Mexicans and by doing stories about how little Jimmy and little Susie's spring break plans are going to be interrupted. Or that it may be dangerous now for their spring break to be held in Mexico. The fact is, what we may need to ask is, who's buying the drugs that are being manufactured in Mexico?
And why is the Mexican economy in the mess that it is in the first place? Oh, here's another one. Where and how are the drug runners who are at war with the Mexican police getting their weapons? Where are they getting those guns? That is our focus today. And the answer is, in large measure, from the United States. From gun shows in the United States. Here's Mexican President Calderon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. FELIPE CALDERON, MEXICO: We need to stop the flow of guns and weapons towards Mexico. Let me express to you that we seized in these two years more than 25,000 weapons and guns, and more than 90 percent of them came from the United States.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The president of Mexico. One estimate is that 2,000 guns enter Mexico every day from this country. And 7,000 people have been killed in just the past couple of years. How are these gunmen doing it? Why can't we plug up the holes on the border once and for all? Both ways, by the way. And is there a certain hypocrisy to this revelation that we just dug up? We will dig deeper with award winning columnist Ruben Navarette next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: That story we did a little while ago about that video game has a lot of people talking. Let's start with Twitter Robert and then let's go over here and work our way across to Facebook. On Twitter, you have the one right there in the middle. She says, "I have two brothers. So I've seen a lot of video games. But one about rape? What's wrong with people these days?" All right now let's go to Jaime there at the very bottom. You see it -- no, no, let's go over to Facebook. Sorry about that. I should have been more clear Robert. Jaime says, "The rape game segment left me without words. I have nieces and cousins who are around the age of your daughter. It's very sad that we live in a world where such a game could be created." But look at Mark just above her. Mark differs. He says, "I'm against the game. But just to twist thoughts on it, what if the creators of the rape game felt that it might actually prevent people going out and committing these types of crimes in real life? And if they can do them in a virtual world." I guess he means instead. I don't know.
How about this. John McCain's daughter takes a shot at Ann Coulter. Well, actually takes several shots. Meghan McCain says Coulter represents everything that is wrong with her party. And one of the most important developments in the union movement in the last decade. I'll tell you what it is. Stay with us, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Ruben Navarette is joining us now. He's an award- winning columnist with the "San Diego Union Tribune." He's here to tell you that there's something in the story that people aren't talking about. Because you watch the headlines, you watch a lot of the shows on all the networks and they'll tell you that there's this massive drug war going on south of border, and that soon it may be affecting us. But you found out that these 7,000 people that may have died in the last couple of years, well, they may have been killed with weapons that came from where?
RUBEN NAVARETTE, COLUMNIST, SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE: Well, Rick, from the United States. You know, we're talking about the fact that so many of these weapons, 90 percent of the weapons according to ATF are being smuggled in from the United States.
SANCHEZ: And they're coming from, what, gun shows where people are selling them? Or secret deals with arms traders? Where are they coming from?
NAVARETTE: All over, Rick, all over. ATF says that they're coming from a variety of places. Some people do buy them at gun shows. But you're also talking about huge shipments, 200 guns at a time. As you said, it's reported 2,000 guns are estimated every day to go into Mexico. So this is not just about the second amendment.
SANCHEZ: How do you do that though? 200 guns, that's a lot of guns. How do you sneak -- how does somebody not see that either being purchased or being transported?
NAVARETTE: That's a big border. It's a 2,000-mile border, not everything is sort of as fortified as Tijuana. They're some isolated parts of the border where they're moving trucks in. And again, we get wrapped up in this whole debate over the second amendment. This is not about people's right to bear arms. James Madison when he wrote the second amendment didn't have in mind gun smuggling thousands of guns into Mexico.
SANCHEZ: Well let me ask you this. If I'm a Mexican national and I come to the United States, how do I go to a gun show and just show these people who probably watch shows where they say not so nice things about me and my people, and do a business deal with them?
NAVARETTE: I'm glad you said that. There's something called a straw purchase. The ATF says that in many cases you have people who are authorized to buy guns because they're U.S. citizens. They're contracted by the drug lords to come in and for a hundred bucks or so they'll go in and buy guns for the drug lords --
SANCHEZ: So you're talking about American citizens?
NAVARETTE: American citizens buying guns that they're entitled to but they're buying them as proxies for the drug lords. There was a case just now in Phoenix, Arizona, where a gun store owner is being prosecuted for knowingly selling to just this kind of arrangement.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. You know there's almost a sense of hypocrisy here, isn't there?
NAVARETTE: Absolutely. Americans are concerned about drug violence in Mexico, and we have this view that somehow it's all contained in Mexico, it's emanating from Mexico. But the guns are emanating here. They're stamped made in the USA. So the funny thing about the violence is, it's sort of like immigrants leave Mexico and then they turn to go back. The violence leaves the U.S. soil it goes to Mexico and then bounces right back again.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting you would make that point. We thank you once again, Ruben Navarette, a columnist for the "San Diego Union Tribune." All this week we're going to be doing different segments on this story about what's going on in Mexico. Not with an accusative tone but to look and see what we can find out that can maybe make the situation a little bit better.
Glenda Umana, we want to go to you now because maybe you can give us a perspective on what you just heard in this conversation. What's the reaction to something like this in Mexico, for example?
GLENDA UMANA, CNN EN ESPANOL: Rick, that interview was so interesting. You should talk about it tomorrow in your show, too, when you're in CNN Espanol. But listen, Rick, what do you think about civil war in Mexico?
SANCHEZ: I think it's probably the people fighting amongst themselves?
UMANA: Well, this is rejected by Mexicans. Instead they call it a militarization of a drug war in some of the states at the border. But today Rick our main story from Mexico at CNN Espanol is the high number of the insurgents to violence. In three years almost 20,000 soldiers have left their posts. There are two reasons for this. One is the low salary, which is, guess, around $400 per month. And the other one is they go to work for the drug cartels.
SANCHEZ: That's interesting. So obviously there's some movement that needs to be made on that front down south of the border. Glenda Umana, thanks so much.
UMANA: Hasta manana.
SANCHEZ: We'll talk about this again. Another segment on this very topic tomorrow. And we will be, as I said earlier, introspective. My thanks to you.
Ann Coulter is offensive, radical and insulting. Ok, who's saying that? John McCain's daughter Meghan.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: If you think John McCain is a GOP maverick, as self- described, then wait until you get a load of his daughter, Meghan. Fed up with the reputation of the Republican Party and concerned about its future. Meghan McCain places much of the blame on conservative pundit Ann Coulter. Blogging for the Daily Beast Miss McCain says she finds Coulter, quote "offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time." She goes on to question whether Coulter's extreme comments are real or just publicity stunts. She doesn't hold back.
Get this quote, "I don't like her demeanor. I've never been a person who was attracted to the hate or negativity. I don't believe in scare tactics. And would never condone or encourage anyone calling President Obama a Muslim." You can read the blog for yourself, by the way. To hear McCain's -- Meghan McCain's laundry lists of reasons why extremism and Ann Coulter are a dying breed. She makes a point that strikes me as very salient in today's political climate. Let me quote her one more time for you. Are you ready?
"The GOP is at a crossroads. I love the Republican Party. But if it turns out I am somehow not conservative enough to please its leaders, it makes me wonder if I am not then worthy of even being a member." Something to think about from Meghan McCain.
Then there is this. A new law that would increase union membership in this country. Or would it. You need to hear about this one.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: It's interesting what's going on. The market's up 326 points. And we're getting breaking news now that Bernie Madoff has just cut a deal with the courts. Allan Chernoff joining us now to bring us up to date on what's going on. Allan what do you have?
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Rick, well it's actually, a one-sided deal. What's going to happen Thursday, we've just learned, is that Bernie Madoff will plead guilty to 11 counts that carry a maximum of 150 years in prison. But Rick, note this. There is no plea agreement with prosecutors. Mr. Madoff is just going ahead and he's going to make that plea on Thursday.
His attorney made that clear just minutes ago. Judge Denny Chen saying in court, there is no plea agreement here. If Mr. Madoff wants to plea, he must plea to all 11 counts. And those counts do include securities fraud, investment adviser fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud. Three counts of money laundering, false statements, perjury and false filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He's looking at 150 years here.
SANCHEZ: So what did he say he's willing to cop to? I heard it at the beginning, but there are a bunch of numbers and they seem fuzzy. What's he saying he's willing to cop to and do? CHERNOFF: Well, as I just said, his attorney just made very clear that he is going to plead guilty on Thursday to these counts I've said and essentially as we've been reporting what Mr. Madoff has said to FBI agents months ago is that he did engage in what he described as a massive ponzi scheme, taking money from new investors, using that money to pay off people, taking withdrawals.
SANCHEZ: I guess what I meant is how many --
CHERNOFF: He estimated the cost of this at $50 billion.
SANCHEZ: How many years in -- We keep losing you. We apologize to the viewers.
CHERNOFF: 150 years in prison.
SANCHEZ: 150 years in prison.
CHERNOFF: That is the number attached to those 11 counts. Rick?
SANCHEZ: Thanks so much. Allan, boy you are all over that story. We certainly appreciate it. The news again just coming in. They'll try and make it official on Thursday. There still may be a little bit of a fly in the ointment. Let's bring in Wolf Blitzer if we can now. He's been following that story and will follow that story in "THE SITUATION ROOM." But there's something else that we told you about earlier. So many people talking about whether Barack Obama can get us out of this situation we're in economically. Now once again we've got approval numbers. We've been following the approval numbers for this brand new president over the last three months. I think we've got those, let's put them up.
All right, let's go to March. March he's at 61 percent. That's now. Let's go back to the month before and see what we've got there. We don't have that now. All right, we lost that. We'll just stay with March, 61 percent. Wolf, how is he doing?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Compared to other presidents at a similar point, 50 days into the new presidency, he's doing about as well as most of the recent presidents have done. He's pretty consistent. This normal 100-day honeymoon with American presidents pretty much seems to be in lockstep going back several presidencies. But you know he's got an enormous amount of challenges. He's facing enormous problems especially on the economy right now.
And there's no doubt, Rick, as you've been pointing out and our viewers know, he's going to be tested internationally as well. Maybe already being tested, for example, by the Chinese in the South China Sea. So there's an enormous headache problem he has. We're going to go through all of that in the course of "THE SITUATION ROOM" later today. But this president, we should be very, very clear he's trying to do a lot. He's defending doing a lot at the same time. He says given the circumstances, he has no choice.
SANCHEZ: And as he keeps reminding us, he says I inherited this problem kind of like a way of trying to make sure everybody understands, I didn't create this thing. I'm just trying to fix it. And I guess -- but how long can he continue to say that before people start raising more serious questions. By the way, the numbers, and, Wolf, I know you know this. January he was at 64 percent. February he was at 66 percent and now he's at 61 percent.
BLITZER: Which is all pretty good job approval numbers. But there's no doubt as he goes on -- they're probably going to go up, they're going to go down. But if he stays roughly around there that's pretty good.
SANCHEZ: Wolf Blitzer, we'll be looking forward to seeing you in "THE SITUATION ROOM.," thanks so much.
There's another big story. Talk about politics. This is one that defines democrats and republicans. It's a law that may allow unions in the United States to increase their membership. To increase their membership. For the most part, republicans are saying we don't like this. Democrats are saying go for it. We'll have a democrat and a republican and they'll debate this when we come back. In fact, there they are, as a matter of fact. Gentlemen, get ready to turn on your engines. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: We've been talking a lot in this show about rich man and poor man and rich man's opinion versus poor man's or working man's opinions. Look at this comment we got a little while ago on Myspace. We talked about Bernie Madoff that he's going to possibly cop to 150 years or that might be his sentence. So this viewer says, "So in rich man years, how long will he be in there?" Thank you very much. Everybody needs a comedian. Let's talk about something else now.
This is a brand new law that's being considered under the Obama administration. What it might do is increase the membership of unions. Might do. But let me show you some video first of all, all right. Here's the video. The video is a protest for the EFCA in Washington, D.C. at least that's what it's called, right? This is a classic argument that divides both camps. It's the dems versus the republicans. At issue, unions and the right to let workers organize without having to do it through secret ballots.
Now phrasing here might get me in trouble with these two guys I'm about to talk to. Republicans say keep it as it is now. It's working just fine. Do not change it. Let me show you something else though now. I have a graphic I want to show you about how union membership in the United States has changed over the last 25 years or so. You got that, Dave? Here it is. 25 years ago, 20 percent of American workers were unionized. Today, it's down to 12.4 percent. So union membership is not exactly increasing in popularity.
Joining us now, republican Congressman Tom Price of Georgia. And we also have Congressman Robert Andrews of New Jersey. My thanks to both of you for being with us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Great to be with you.
SANCHEZ: Congressman Andrews let me begin with you. It does seem or some would argue, that this makes it easier for unions to boost their membership. Is that right?
REP. ROBERT ANDREWS, (D) NEW JERSEY: I think what it does is make it easier for people to make a choice that's free of coercion, intimidation. There's a long history in 2005 alone there were 31,000 findings of intimidation against people in the process of choosing whether or not to be in a union.
SANCHEZ: Before we get to that. The question I asked you is this. Is this aimed at increasing the union membership in the United States? You are a democrat. Barack Obama ran on it. Isn't that what you want, and why are you hiding? If that's what you want, say it.
ANDREWS: I would like to see it, but that's not what this law is aimed at. It's aimed at giving people a free and uncoerced choice as to whether to join a union. We think they will because the benefits are so substantial. But it's aimed at letting people decide for themselves.
SANCHEZ: Do you buy that Congressman Price?
REP. TOM PRICE, (R) GEORGIA: No, Rick. The word of my good friend Robert Andrews doesn't match the bill itself. It wouldn't be free of coercion they would be eligible for coercion on both sides, from the union bosses and from the employers. What we believe is that you ought to have to have a secret ballot for the formation of a union. That's what the American people believe. 85 percent of the American people believe that that's what ought to occur. That's the safest for employees. It's also the one that allows for the most appropriate number of union members because they choose independently and secretly without having that coercion.
SANCHEZ: I hammered the good congressman so let me hammer you as well, respectfully, of course. As a republican, wouldn't you like to see union membership stay low? Tell me the truth now?
PRICE: As a republican, what I want is what the American people want and that is that we want the appropriate number of union members that are able to freely and secretly select union memberships. It's just what George McGovern wants, it's what Warren Buffet wants. It's what the American people want. The retention of a secret ballot. Not just sign a petition. If all you have to do is sign a petition, then that's where you get the coercion and the influence that comes from either side, frankly.
SANCHEZ: You can close this out in 10 seconds. I want to be fair to you Congressman Andrews but we've got a Bernie Madoff breaking news story we have to get to. But go ahead. Finish that up, put a caveat on there for us.
ANDREWS: If the workers want to get out of the union, all they have to do is sign a card. They don't need an election. We think the same thing should go to getting into a union in the first place.
SANCHEZ: My thanks to both of you, Tom Price and Robert Andrews. I apologize, by the way, but this Madoff story has us jumping right now. Apparently we've got some new video coming in. This is Bernie Madoff now leaving the courtroom. We reported to you moments ago, in what was breaking news, he's apparently agreed to some kind of deal that he's going to offer up on Thursday related to the Madoff story is what's going on right now on Wall Street. Stephanie Elam is watching that for us. Stephanie, how are we going to finish?
STEPHANIE ELAM: We are going to finish with the biggest close on the Dow point wise of the year. Up 355 points, up more than 5 percent. The NASDAQ and the S&P up over 6 percent. Nearly -- almost 7 percent on the NASDAQ. So strong day here.
SANCHEZ: Looky there as some of my friends say down here in Georgia. Wolf Blitzer is standing by now. He's got "THE SITUATION ROOM." Wolf, take it away.
BLITZER: Rick, thanks very much.
